Debt Debate in Congress

[nathanm]

The difference, Conan, is that Bush was deficit spending in a good economy with nearly full employment. That's a recipe for the bad kind of inflation. Deficit spending in a down economy usually makes financial sense, in that the sooner growth is resumed, the more money we end up having in our economy overall. Compound growth, and all that.

[Conan71]

It is all a game to attack the President. A game.

I tend to agree.  Instead of really trying to solve problems in a sensible manner, they are simply worried about their own job prospects in 2012 and getting a Repuglican in the White House in 2012.

Again, I see it as each party taking turns raiding the treasury on behalf of their biggest supporters.

[Gaspar]

Of course not. Why would you want business to pay any more? Just take away from kids and the elderly.

If you are serious about reducing debt ( or as you put it... the continued solvency of the nation), I would think that cutting expenses as well as raising revenue would be considered.

It is all a game to attack the President. A game.

No, it is accountability.  It is attacking the JOB of the president.  

I could care less about the man, it's the job he is doing that is open to criticism.  He is woefully unprepared and the result has been devastating.

[nathanm]

Yes, devastating. Turning a rapid downward spiral into very slow growth is devastating.

There are these books. I believe they are called dictionaries. You may want to read one.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Nathan,
There is that even bigger problem touched on a few posts back... Bush turned a surplus that would have paid off the national debt by about 2015 according to the GAO, into the trillions in debt we enjoy today.  There was a half trillion dollar swing the first year of the Bush corporate welfare program.  The biggest redistribution of wealth the world has ever seen.



And those debt limit numbers are misleading.  Bush's last budget, which ended in late summer 2009, ended with $11 trillion in debt at that point.  So there is an extra $2 trillion that is getting lost in the shuffle and being attributed where the credit does not belong.

The RWRE is disingenuous (along with being outright dishonest) about the debt.  They say it is abhorrent.  Yet, they DO realize that tax increases will be necessary as well as spending cuts, but fight getting rid of the Bush Abominations tooth and nail. 

I repeat a question posed previously, that was carefully ignored; "does anyone reading this honestly believe that the debt we are destroying our children's lives with can be solve without letting these cuts expire?"

I submit that if anyone answers yes, they too are lying, or like Bachmann, profoundly stupid.

[Conan71]

Nathan,
There is that even bigger problem touched on a few posts back... Bush turned a surplus that would have paid off the national debt by about 2015 according to the GAO, into the trillions in debt we enjoy today.  There was a half trillion dollar swing the first year of the Bush corporate welfare program.  The biggest redistribution of wealth the world has ever seen.



And those debt limit numbers are misleading.  Bush's last budget, which ended in late summer 2009, ended with $11 trillion in debt at that point.  So there is an extra $2 trillion that is getting lost in the shuffle and being attributed where the credit does not belong.

The RWRE is disingenuous (along with being outright dishonest) about the debt.  They say it is abhorrent.  Yet, they DO realize that tax increases will be necessary as well as spending cuts, but fight getting rid of the Bush Abominations tooth and nail. 

I repeat a question posed previously, that was carefully ignored; "does anyone reading this honestly believe that the debt we are destroying our children's lives with can be solve without letting these cuts expire?"

I submit that if anyone answers yes, they too are lying, or like Bachmann, profoundly stupid.

Honestly, I don't see how you can solve the debt issue without tax increases.  Talk of more tax decreases by any presidential candidate is incredibly disingenuous.  The person who wins my vote is the one who is bold enough to say we all need to dig in and do two things: decrease our dependence on government and contribute a little extra to ensure the solvency of America.  In return, we will see a like decrease across the board in every budget, in every entitlement.

I still believe in the principal of lower taxes equaling increased revenue to the treasury.  However, in order to return us to some sort of fiscal sanity, we are going to have to accept a higher tax rate for every working American and get rid of gaping loopholes which allow multinational corporations to evade taxes altogether.  Those companies can't possibly afford to move all operations off-shore and never do business in the United States again.  I understand that earnings and profits earned outside the U.S. which have already been taxed by another authority should not be taxed again, but our leaders have got to sprout some cajones and end ridiculous accounting gymnastics which allow them to slough off profits as interest expense while they are collecting all sorts of job creation incentives on the state and local level. 

I've always believed in gentle tax policies for those companies which employ a lot of Americans in great paying jobs, which in turn creates a lot of tax revenue via payrolls and consumption by their employees.  But examining the accounting schemes they are allowed, they've got to be willing to do their part as well since in many cases it's government spending which has helped fill their coffers in the first place.

No I've not gone liberal on my fiscal policy. I think the core of people who call themselves fiscally conservative don't really grasp what being fiscally conservative is all about.  You don't live beyond your means and you don't trade tax cuts or spending increases for votes which is precisely the cycle we've been in for several decades.  No, we should not return to 70% tax rates on the upper income, but we also need to quit giving free rides at lower income levels.  Everyone needs to have a personal understanding of how expensive our government has become by having to pay into it.

[Hoss]

Honestly, I don't see how you can solve the debt issue without tax increases.  Talk of more tax decreases by any presidential candidate is incredibly disingenuous.  The person who wins my vote is the one who is bold enough to say we all need to dig in and do two things: decrease our dependence on government and contribute a little extra to ensure the solvency of America.  In return, we will see a like decrease across the board in every budget, in every entitlement.

I still believe in the principal of lower taxes equaling increased revenue to the treasury.  However, in order to return us to some sort of fiscal sanity, we are going to have to accept a higher tax rate for every working American and get rid of gaping loopholes which allow multinational corporations to evade taxes altogether.  Those companies can't possibly afford to move all operations off-shore and never do business in the United States again.  I understand that earnings and profits earned outside the U.S. which have already been taxed by another authority should not be taxed again, but our leaders have got to sprout some cajones and end ridiculous accounting gymnastics which allow them to slough off profits as interest expense while they are collecting all sorts of job creation incentives on the state and local level. 

I've always believed in gentle tax policies for those companies which employ a lot of Americans in great paying jobs, which in turn creates a lot of tax revenue via payrolls and consumption by their employees.  But examining the accounting schemes they are allowed, they've got to be willing to do their part as well since in many cases it's government spending which has helped fill their coffers in the first place.

No I've not gone liberal on my fiscal policy. I think the core of people who call themselves fiscally conservative don't really grasp what being fiscally conservative is all about.  You don't live beyond your means and you don't trade tax cuts or spending increases for votes which is precisely the cycle we've been in for several decades.  No, we should not return to 70% tax rates on the upper income, but we also need to quit giving free rides at lower income levels.  Everyone needs to have a personal understanding of how expensive our government has become by having to pay into it.

This... +1 and then some.

[Cats Cats Cats]

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0

That is an article on capital gains tax and tax revenue.  There are many factors in the "lower taxes = more money" concept.  I think with capital gains, as the cbo points out, people decide when to sell.  So waiting a year for a lower rate decreases one tax year nut decreases another.

[guido911]

Honestly, I don't see how you can solve the debt issue without tax increases. 

As long as EVERYBODY gets a tax increase, then okay.

[Cats Cats Cats]

As long as EVERYBODY gets a tax increase, then okay.

Umm...  Yeah.. remove the Bush tax cuts...  Like everybody has been saying.  It will raise taxes on everybody but the top 1% get hit about 30% more than the rest.

[guido911]

Umm...  Yeah.. remove the Bush tax cuts...  Like everybody has been saying.  It will raise taxes on everybody but the top 1% get hit about 30% more than the rest.

Let's get over the wealth envy and make it simple. EVERYONE gets a tax increase in the same proportion to their income. That's been my point throughout. I don't want to sock it to the lower class, whoever that is by the way, but we are country made up of people who equally partake in the benefits of living here. I didn't game the system to succeed, and the poor were not screwed out of success by the system or even by some rich guy. Still, all of us have government bills to pay, and all of us should have to pay it. Conceptually, and in all seriousness, I just do not understand the mentality that certain among us are legally-obligated to pay our bills while others are not.

[Teatownclown]

Conceptually, and in all seriousness, I just do not understand the mentality that certain among us are legally-obligated to pay our bills while others are not.

Nonsense...see "bankruptcy code." How many have escaped paying their obligations to the treasury by declaring insolvency only to reform and do it again and again? You really fail over and over with that throw down wealth envy crappola you spew. You hold the corporations and wealthy to a much lower standard than the needy and the helpless. . I never see you post anything about closing the loopholes which allow corporations to escape taxes through off shore shenanigans. You hate subsidized anything except those status quo military expenditures. What do you have positive to offer up to help the debt crisis you deem so threatening? Or, is it the constant ramble against Obumma rather than the realistic view of congress?

[we vs us]

Let's get over the wealth envy and make it simple. EVERYONE gets a tax increase in the same proportion to their income. That's been my point throughout. I don't want to sock it to the lower class, whoever that is by the way, but we are country made up of people who equally partake in the benefits of living here. I didn't game the system to succeed, and the poor were not screwed out of success by the system or even by some rich guy. Still, all of us have government bills to pay, and all of us should have to pay it. Conceptually, and in all seriousness, I just do not understand the mentality that certain among us are legally-obligated to pay our bills while others are not.

It's not envy, it's numbers.  The rich have benefited far more than any other tier of society from the Bush tax structure, as well as how the recession-n-recovery have progressed.  You benefit more, you pay more . . . or at least that's how it's always been.  But tax rates on the folks who've benefited more are lower than they've been since the 1920's.  Meaning, that the folks who've benefited are actually paying far less than they have in generations.  

So:  is it fair that this group is making far more than ever before, but contributing less then they have in almost a century?

[guido911]

Nonsense...see "bankruptcy code." How many have escaped paying their obligations to the treasury by declaring insolvency only to reform and do it again and again? You really fail over and over with that throw down wealth envy crappola you spew. You hold the corporations and wealthy to a much lower standard than the needy and the helpless. . I never see you post anything about closing the loopholes which allow corporations to escape taxes through off shore shenanigans. You hate subsidized anything except those status quo military expenditures. What do you have positive to offer up to help the debt crisis you deem so threatening? Or, is it the constant ramble against Obumma rather than the realistic view of congress?

What do you mean "nonsense"? You approve of a society where some have to pay and others do not? And if you read my entire post, you'll notice that I do no want to hammer the lower class. I just want all of us to contribute financially to pay for government services. What is do wrong with that?

[Teatownclown]

What do you mean "nonsense"? You approve of a society where some have to pay and others do not? And if you read my entire post, you'll notice that I do no want to hammer the lower class. I just want all of us to contribute financially to pay for government services. What is do wrong with that?

Ron Paul's now babbling and way over his head. He comes from a state with plenty of bankrupts: http://www.bcsalliance.com/bankruptcy_statestats.html . Seems the "values" states have way more bankruptcies than the liberal states. So much for personal responsibility.

"Paul, the libertarian Republican presidential candidate, suggested that bankruptcy would be a good option — as would, short of that, refusing to repay obligations to the Federal Reserve." I know some citizens who did just that, Ron - refused to pay debts and filed bankruptcy. Of course, they lost all their assets, including their homes, in the process, but ..."
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/168657-rep-ron-paul-bankruptcy-could-be-cure-for-us-debt


And don't look now, but you and Obumma are on the same page, Guido.
Despite Pleas From Advocacy Organizations, White House Cuts Likely To Affect Spending That Helps The Poor http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/despite-pleas-advocacy-organizations-

Damn, what's this world coming to?